One day, I came across one message from a certain Christian which says, “Christianity doesn’t back out. Because our warrant is the Bible: the propositional word from God. It answers man’s deepest questions like “the finality of life,” the purpose of man, etc.. “
Is this a statement of belief or what?

I think this is pure egoism in the part of the writer. What do you think?
Well, as expected, Christians always rely in egocenticism. (Have you read Norman Geisler’s book? Talk about being too egoistic).

Is the Bible the only book capable of going to the deepest human concerns? There are other choices. Back in early 20th century, a European Ambassador asked a Japanese diplomat how Japanese children learn about morality without reading the Bible. The Japanese diplomat answered, “The Japanese children read the Code of Bushido.” The point is that answers to the questions regarding life purpose, morality, etc., is not monopolized by the Christian holy book. The Buddhist dharma for instance teaches its adherence how to resist and control desire and to look for higher wisdom and the importance of self reliance. The Tao-Te-Kung teaches absolute virtue. The Hindus teaches religious tolerance and the Avedas of the Persians teaches man about the fight between good and evil and eternal reward for the righteous and damnation to the evil doers.

For nonbelievers, reading works from different philosophers are good alternatives. There are many nonbelievers which have lived lives with purpose and have contributed to the benefit of humanity. People like Robert Ingresoll, Clarence Darrow, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Margaret Sanger and allot of others are but few examples. Their lives are inspirations to many nonbelievers.

Now as for the Holy Bible, I did not say that this book has nothing to answer about the questions on morality and virtue, I just say that there are better books to choose for.

We have better choices…

DISCLAIMER: The opinions in this post do not necessarily represent the position of the Filipino Freethinkers.

The idea of absolutes in a social sense is by nature oppressive. When you declare something to be absolute (e.g. the infallibility of the Pope), anyone who disagrees with you becomes an instant enemy. That's the problem with making things sacred – you turn opposing views to sacrilege, and you punish the sacrilegious.

The same can be said of the Bible. Once you say it is Absolute – absolutely true, or a moral absolute – you close yourself to anything that says otherwise. And you make excuses for the Bibles faults, because they can't be faults, because the Bible is Absolute, isn't it? So maybe the "slavery" promoted in the Bible wasn't the slavery we know today. Maybe it was a happy sort of slavery, full of love and freedom. And maybe the offering of daughters to rapists wasn't really what it looked like, either. And the bunch of other stuff in the Bible, they were probably taken out of context, weren't they? Because the Bible is the Moral Absolute. It can't possibly be wrong.

But here's a question – who said so? Who said the Bible was Absolute? The Pope? Who said the Pope is infallible? The Church? And is the Church infallible? Who gave the Church authority? The Bible?

but there are absolutes…I strongly believe that there's a moral absolute, the Bible. I know it may sound off to some, but I really believe that the Bible is the Moral absolute.
But the Bible is not just a mere book on morality, it is also a book of Philosophy.
many will argue with this…I'll just wait for your reply.

I don't think there's anything such as RATIONAL MORALITY. Societies have different views on what's rational and what's moral that it's going to be almost impossible to create a one-world thought order that we would all need to follow.

Additionally, what you said is not sufficient, "Christianity as well as other religion also deal with morality. But their morality is the product of irrationality or unreason."

Their morality is dictated by the norms of society, evolving and adapting to the changes of time as it sees fit. God help us if we still think that slavery is OK and killing in the name of Him/Her/It to convert some followers is morally acceptable… or that the world is flat.

The way I see it, other non-Christians (but not all) may also have the same view about their own scripture. Naturally, if you're the type who adheres strongly to your religion, you choose your own, and sometimes tend to have a "my Bible/God is better than yours" mentality. For example, we all know that Muslim extremists and ultra-fundamentalists want to advocate a theocracy that recognizes only the absolute authority of the Qu'ran in both secular and sacred matters (just like the said Christian Fundamentalist views the Bible. In the end, it depends on which side of the fence a believer is.

Note that I qualified my statement: some Muslims, on the other hand, are more open in accepting that people of another faith or persuasion may hold another scripture as their own guide. There are some believers who are more tolerant of other people's faith even while clinging to their own. Mahatma Gandhi is said to have read the Bible and the Qu'ran even though he is known to be Hindu. (How else could he have said, " I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ" without reading the Bible in its entirety?)

No, it is not egoism, if egoism means selfishness. Selfishness according to Christianity is evil, morally evil. But what is exactly selfishness means? If the meaning is concern for ones own self, or self-interest, then is it morally evil to be concern for ones own welfare?

Yes, Christianity as well as other religion also deal with morality. But their morality is the product of irrationality or unreason.

What we need is a RATIONAL MORALITY. that is to be discovered (or to be understand if somebody discovered it) by the individual person.